Modeling synergism in early phase cancer trials with drug combination with continuous dose levels: is there an added value?
Main Article Content
Abstract
In parametric Bayesian designs of early phase cancer clinical trials with drug combinations exploring a discrete set of partially ordered doses, several authors claimed that there is no added value in including an interaction term to model synergism between the two drugs. In this paper, we investigate these claims in the setting of continuous dose levels of the two agents. Parametric models will be used to describe the relationship between the doses of the two agents and the probability of dose limiting toxicity and efficacy. Trial design proceeds by treating cohorts of two patients simultaneously receiving different dose combinations and response adaptive randomization. We compare trial safety and efficiency of the estimated maximum tolerated dose (MTD) curve between models that include an interaction term with models without the synergism parameter with extensive simulations. Under a selected class of dosetoxicity models and dose escalation algorithm, we found that not including an interaction term in the model can compromise the safety of the trial and reduce the pointwise reliability of the estimated MTD
curve.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
References
Babb, J., Rogatko, A. & Zacks, S. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Statistics in Medicine 17, 1103–1120 (1998).
Braun, T. & Wang, S. A hierarchical Bayesian design for phase I trials of novel combinations of cancer therapeutic agents. Biometrics 66, 805–12 (Sept. 2010).
Chen, Z., Krailo, M., Azen, S. & Tighiouart, M. A novel toxicity scoring system treating toxicity response as a quasi-continuous variable in Phase I clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials 31, 473–82 (Sept. 2010).
Chen, Z., Tighiouart, M. & Kowalski, J. Dose Escalation with Overdose Control using a Quasi-Continuous Toxicity Score in Cancer Phase I Clinical Trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials 33, 949–58 (Apr. 2012).
Chu, P. L., Lin, Y & Shih, W. J. Unifying CRM and EWOC designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 139, 1146–1163 (2009).
Clertant, M. & O’Quigley, J. Semiparametric dose finding methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 79, 1487–1508 (2017).
Daimon, T, Zohar, S & O’Quigley, J. Posterior maximization and averaging for Bayesian working model choice in the continual reassessment method. Statistics in Medicine 30, 1563–1573 (2011).
Diniz, M. A., Kim, S. & Tighiouart, M. A Bayesian adaptive design in cancer phase I trials using dose combinations in the presence of a baseline covariate. Journal of Probability and Statistics 2018 (2018).
Diniz, M. A., Kim, S. & Tighiouart, M. A Bayesian adaptive design in cancer phase I trials using dose combinations with ordinal toxicity grades. Stats 3,221–238 (2020).
Diniz, M. A., Li, Q. & Tighiouart, M. Dose finding for drug combination in early cancer phase I trials using conditional continual reassessment method. Journal of Biometrics & Biostatistics 8, 381 (2017).
Dressler, E., Garrett-Mayer, E. & Bandyopadhyay, D. Proportional odds model for dose-finding clinical trial designs with ordinal toxicity grading. Statistics in Medicine 30, 2070–80 (July 2011).
Gatsonis, C. & Greenhouse, J. Bayesian methods for phase I clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 11, 1377 –1389 (Aug. 1992).
Goodman, S. N., Zahurak, M. L. & Piantadosi, S. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Statistics in Medicine 14,1149–1161 (1995).
Iasonos, A., Zohar, S. & O’Quigley, J. Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs. Clinical Trials 8, 370–9 (Aug. 2011).
Ji, Y. & Wang, S.-J. Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliablemethod than the 3+ 3 design for practical phase I trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 31, 1785 (2013).
Jiménez, J. L., Kim, S. & Tighiouart, M. A Bayesian seamless phase I–II trial design with two stages for cancer clinical trials with drug combinations. Biometrical Journal 62,1300–1314 (2020).
Jiménez, J. L., Tighiouart, M. & Gasparini, M. Cancer phase I trial design using drug combinations when a fraction of dose limiting toxicities is attributable to one or more agents. Biometrical Journal 61,319–332 (2019).
Korn, E. L. & Simon, R. Selecting dose-intense drug combinations: Metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 20,155–166 (1991).
Leung, D. H.-Y. & Wang, Y.-G. An extension of the continual reassessment method usingdecision theory. Statistics in Medicine 21, 51–63 (2002).
Lin, R. & Yin, G. Bayesian optimal interval design for dose finding in drug-combination trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 26, 2155–2167 (2017)
.21. Lin, R. & Yin, G. Nonparametric overdose control with late-onset toxicity in phase I clinicaltrials. Biostatistics 18,180–194 (2017).
Liu, S., Yin, G. & Yuan, Y. Bayesian data augmentation dose finding with continual reassessment method and delayed toxicity. The Annals of Applied Statistics 7,1837 (2013).
Lyu, J., Ji, Y., Zhao, N. & Catenacci, D. V. AAA: triple adaptive Bayesian designs for the identification of optimal dose combinations in dual-agent dose finding trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied Statistics 68, 385–410 (2019).
Mander, A. P. & Sweeting, M. J. A product of independent beta probabilities dose escalation design for dual-agent phase I trials. Statistics in Medicine 34, 1261–1276 (2015).
Møller, S. An extension of the continual reassessment methods using a preliminary up-and-down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients, in order to investigate a greater range of doses. Statistics in Medicine 14, 911–922 (1995).
Mozgunov, P., Knight, R, Barnett, H & Jaki, T. Using an interaction parameter in model-based phase I trials for combination treatments? A simulation study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18, 345 (2021).
O’Quigley, J. & Paoletti, X. Continual reassessment method for ordered groups. Biometrics 59, 430–440 (2003).
O’Quigley, J., Pepe, M. & Fisher, L. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics, 33–48 (1990).
O’Quigley, J. & Shen, L. Z. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics, 673–684 (1996).
Razaee, Z. S., Cook-Wiens, G. & Tighiouart, M. A nonparametric Bayesian method for dosefinding in drug combinations cancer trials. Statistics in Medicine 41, 1059–1080 (Mar. 2022).
Riviere, M., Yuan, Y., Dubois, F. & Zohar, S. A Bayesian dose-finding design for drug combination clinical trials based on the logistic model. Pharmaceutical Statistics 13 (July 2014).
Roberts, T., Goulart, B., Squitieri, L., Stallings, S., Halpern, E., Chabner, B., Gazelle, G.,Finkelstein, S. & Clark, J. Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 292, 2130–40 (Nov. 2004).
Shi, Y. & Yin, G. Escalation with overdose control for phase I drug-combination trials. Statisticsin Medicine 32 (Nov. 2013).
Thall, P. F., Millikan, R. E., Mueller, P. & Lee, S.-J. Dose-finding with two agents in phase I oncology trials. Biometrics 59, 487–496 (2003).
Tighiouart, M. in Principles and Practice of Clinical Trials (eds Piantadosi, S. & Meinert, C. L.) 1003–1030 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022).ISBN: 978-3-319-52636-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52636-2_80.
Tighiouart, M. Two-stage design for phase I–II cancer clinical trials using continuous dose combinations of cytotoxic agents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statis-tics) 68, 235–250 (2019).
Tighiouart, M., Cook-Wiens, G. & Rogatko, A. A Bayesian adaptive design for cancer phase I trials using a flexible range of doses. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 28, 562–574 (2018).
Tighiouart, M., Cook-Wiens, G. & Rogatko, A. Incorporating a patient dichotomous characteristic in cancer phase I clinical trials using escalation with overdose control. Journal of Probability and Statistics 2012, 10 (2012).
Tighiouart, M., Cook-Wiens, G. & Rogatko, A. Escalation with overdose control using ordinal toxicity grades for cancer phase I clinical trials. Journal of Probability and Statistics 2012 (Oct.2012).
Tighiouart, M., Li, Q., Piantadosi, S. & Rogatko, A. A Bayesian adaptive design for combination of three drugs in cancer phase I clinical trials. Current Research in Biostatistics 6,1–11 (Jan.2016).
Tighiouart, M., Li, Q. & Rogatko, A. A Bayesian adaptive design for estimating the maximum tolerated dose curve using drug combinations in cancer phase I clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 36, 280–290 (2017).
Tighiouart, M., Piantadosi, S. & Rogatko, A. Dose finding with drug combinations in cancer phase I clinical trials using conditional escalation with overdose control. Statistics in Medicine 33, 3815–3829 (2014).
Tighiouart, M. & Rogatko, A. Dose finding with escalation with overdose control (EWOC) in cancer clinical trials.
Statistical Science, 217–226 (2010).
Tighiouart, M. & Rogatko, A. Number of patients per cohort and sample size considerations using dose escalation with overdose control. Journal of Probability and Statistics 2012 (2012).
Tighiouart, M., Rogatko, A. & Babb, J. S. Flexible Bayesian methods for cancer phase I clinical trials. Dose escalation with overdose control.Statistics in Medicine 24, 2183–2196 (2005).
Wages, N. A., Conaway, M. R. & O’Quigley, J. Continual reassessment method for partial ordering. Biometrics 67,1555–1563 (2011).
Wang, K. & Ivanova, A. Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space. Biometrics 61, 217–222 (2005).
Wheeler, G. M., Sweeting, M. J. & Mander, A. P. Toxicity-dependent feasibility bounds forthe escalation with overdose control approach in phase I cancer trials. Statistics in Medicine 36, 2499–2513 (2017).
Yin, G. & Yuan, Y. Bayesian dose finding in oncology for drug combinations by copula regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 58, 211–224 (2009).
Yin, G. & Yuan, Y. Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method in phase I clinical trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association 104, 954–968 (2009).
Yuan, Y., Hess, K. R., Hilsenbeck, S. G. & Gilbert, M. R. Bayesian optimal interval design:a simple and well-performing design for phase I oncology trials. Clinical Cancer Research 2, 4291–301 (2016)